The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution

Many today don't realize that we are facing the same sort of tactics by our own Federal government that our forefathers faced from the British just prior to the War for Independence. In fact, I'll venture to guess that most people never were taught in school what follows in this article. That's right, gun control is nothing new now, nor was it even new in the twentieth century. It was very much alive in the eighteenth century. So when someone comes along telling you "the founding fathers wouldn't have envisioned this or that" with regards to arms, just remind them of what they faced during their lifetimes when the primary weapons were single shot muskets and cannons.

Following the events of December 16, 1773 in which the Sons of Liberty in Boston made a political protest of the tax policy of the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea that was imported into the colonies in Boston Harbor. Disguised as Indians, a group numbering anywhere from 30 to 130 men dumped 342 chests of tea into the sea over the course of three hours.

As a result of this protest, Parliament, with the direct encouragement of King George III, passed the Coercive Acts, or as they were properly known the Restraining Acts, in 1774. These acts are as follows:

Boston Port Act (June 1, 1774)

Quartering Act (June 2, 1774)

Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774)

Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774)

Though Parliament was warned by men like Edmund Burke and Lord Chatham that such legislation would not be wise and would only provoke the colonists more, they failed to listen to reason.

Patriots that heard of the Acts determined that they would fight and die rather than see such laws enforced upon them by the British Army. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” Interestingly enough, a South Carolina newspaper essay, which was reprinted in Virginia at the time, recorded that any law that required the military to enforce it was "necessarily illegitimate," according to David B. Kopel.

In Massachusetts, the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage, forbid town meetings from taking place more than once a year. So when an illegal meeting was taking place in Salem, he sent in the British Redcoats to break it up. They were met with 3,000 armed Americans and they retreated. Interestingly enough, Gage's aide, John Andrews, said that anyone in the area that was 16 years or older owned a firearm and had gunpowder. If you were wondering, yes this is where the issue of the First Amendment came from and where "town hall meetings" originated from. Let's just say in Massachusetts, it was "getting real."

The British realized that they could not control the people with only 2,000 troops in Boston. So what did they do? They sought to eliminate the people's ability to firearms and gun powder.

Remember, at one time it was law in the colonies for militiamen to own their own firearms and have a minimum quantity of gunpowder on hand, though all could not afford it. Remember too, that this powder was not stable like that we use today.

On September 1, 1774, just before dawn, Gage sent approximately 260 Redcoats up the Mystic River to seize several hundred barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house and this became known as the "Powder Alarm."

The militia at the time produced 20,000 men who mobilized and began marching towards Boston. American colonists believed that if the British were going to use force or violence to seize arms or powder, it was an act of war and they would respond in kind. This is what happened the following year.

Kopel writes,

Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

Perhaps you are seeing exactly where the Bill of Rights came from. It was borne out of the injustices that were done to the Colonists by a tyrannical government.

The Massachusetts Assembly convened so that representatives could reassemble as the "Provincial Congress." Gage declared the assembly illegal. Notice that didn't stop it. Then on October 26, 1774 they adopted a resolution which condemned military rule and criticized Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.”

Gage was urged a week prior by Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America to disarm New England. Two days after the letter was dispatched from Dartmouth, King George III and Parliament blocked the importation of arms and ammunition to Americans. While the order required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America, the reality was that no permits were granted. This effectively blocked arms and ammunition being imported to the colonies. Does this sound familiar to the kind of talk we hear today regarding certain types of weapons and ammunition? I think it does.

Founding Father Ben Franklin set out to import arms and ammunition from France, Spain and the Netherlands.

Paul Revere took to New Hampshire to warn of British ships approaching with the express purpose that they were going to be seizing firearms, cannons and gunpowder at Fort William and Mary. Four hundred New Hampshire patriots moved preemptively to capture those arms on December 14, 1774. A prominent New Hampshire paper at the time said the capture was both "prudent" and "proper." They also reminded their readers of the ancient Carthagians who consented to "deliver up all their Arms to the Romans" and then overcome by them soon after.

Kopel gives great insight as he writes,

"The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny."

Things became more heated and pressed in the following months. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave his famous speech to the Virginia legislature. During that speech Henry declared, “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

That convention put forth a committee which included Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this committee was “to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend their commonwealth. This convention then urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.”

Can you imagine our legislature putting forth something like that today? Frankly, I would love to see it!

Ultimately, do you know what started America's War for Independence? That's right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled "self-defense" while banning firearms and gunpowder.

On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists' arms and gunpowder stores in Concord.

At Lexington Green, the British were met by approximately seventy American Minute Men led by John Parker. At the North Bridge in Concord, the British were confronted again, this time by 300 to 400 armed colonists, and were forced to march back to Boston with the Americans firing on them all the way. By the end of the day, the colonists were singing "Yankee Doodle" and the American Revolution had begun. You can read a timeline of the events that followed here.

With the Americans pushing back against the British use of military force to seize their firearms, Gage sought to offer the people of Boston the opportunity to leave town, but only if they surrendered their arms. Some accepted the offer and some 2,674 guns were surrendered. Gage didn't let the people go.

While Benjamin Franklin had just returned from London on an unsuccessful diplomatic trip, he “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”

On June 19, 1775, Gage finally gave an ultimatum to the Bostonians. They were to surrender their arms. Anyone that was found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.

Just weeks later on July 6, 1775 the Continental Congress issued A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. This was written by Thomas Jefferson and Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson.

Jefferson wrote:

We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.—The latter is our choice—We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.—Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable… With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Kurt Nimmo recites what followed:

The document was drafted after England sent soldiers to “restore order” in the Colonies and the Second Continental Congress thought it necessary to raise an army and justify its actions.

It also underscored the necessity to bear arms against tyranny – a concept that is almost entirely lost today as the United Nations conspires to register and confiscate the firearms of Americans and ill-informed citizens defend the Second Amendment as the right to own a gun for hunting.

Two days later, on July 8, 1775, the Olive Branch Petition was issued. It proposed a final peace deal with England and promised loyalty to the British government if it repealed the Coercive Acts and ended its taxation without representation policies.

The Olive Branch Petition was summarily dismissed by King George's official, stating that the Colonies were in a state of rebellion. The English Parliament then passed the American Prohibitory Act, which forbid any further trade with the Colonies. In other words, they imposed what we call today sanctions, which became a further act of war against the colonies.

The rest, as they say is history, but this is the history before that.

Now we are facing similar infringements upon our liberties, not by a tyrannical government on the other side of the globe with a few troops here on our soil, but by our own Federal government. They are taking the same steps that the British did against our forefathers. The question for you my fellow Americans, is this: Will you surrender to tyranny or will you stand against it? No one can make that choice for you, but remember the lessons of the past that those who surrender their arms, inevitably surrender their liberty and with it their lives. May God grant you strength to stand against tyranny.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



  • Patriot


    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

  • ralphwylie

    This is a history lesson Piers Morgan must have missed. History is about to repeat itself so maybe he can witness it firsthand instead of from a book this time.

  • Breeze13

    This article is wonderful. I learned more history from it, and I see WE THE PEOPLE are facing the same thing out forefathers faced. I cannot, and will not sit by and let this happen. We owe ourselves, and our forefathers to fight to be free, and I will! I will not comply. And if the politicians think we won't fight, let that be their mistake. Right is on our side and we will taste victory again. "We shall never surrender."

  • coastx

    re “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon
    us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our
    rifles.” THIS was a colonial!

    Today, people think they are going to throw Britain off using keyboard and monitor...


  • /.murphy

    Where's the evidence that the British banned guns and that that move brought about a revolution? British Law, particularly the Declaration of Rights of 1689, disallowed the disarming of the Protestant population. When and how was that somehow repealed for the American colonies?

    Always lovely to see the uninformed make all kinds of statements about this or that historical gun control "tactic," based solely on false information. LOL!

    • Tim Brown

      murph i guess you don't get that tyrants don't follow laws....LOL:) I just provided you the information. Tell me murph, what were they planning on doing at Ft William and Mary? What was the Royal Governor Gage doing when he demanded the surrender arms? What was going on at Lexington and Concord? That's what I thought. Citing a Declaration does nothing except show a piece of paper. Tyrants, like criminals don't care about law. I suppose next you'll be telling me that the military and police weren't cofiscating guns after hurricane katria depsite the Dick Act and the Second Amendment........

      always lovely to see uninformed people make all kinds of statementes about things they really don't know anything about based on a completely irrelevant argument. LOL:)

    • /.murphy

      It would have been much more succinct to say, "no, Murphy, I couldn't really find any evidence of a British attempt to legally ban firearms in the American colonies in the period before the Revolution."

    • Steven Newman

      "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live as slaves." -- John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775

    • Tim Brown

      Steven Newman, thank you for citing the men who actually dealt with all of this and framed the Second Amendment the way they did because of what they faced!

    • Steven Newman

      "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803), known as the "Father of the American Revolution."

    • Steven Newman

      Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

    • /.murphy

      So... you're too shallow to express your own opinion, then?

    • Steven Newman

      Want some more Murphy "Troll"?

    • /.murphy

      Oh... I see your English is limited. What a pity.

    • Tim Brown

      murph, actually I provided you with all you needed, but you just continue to stick your head in the sand.

    • LanaM2

      Complete and utter nonsense. Just cite the law or act.

      If I were you, I'd start reading the Intolerable (Coercive) Acts of 1774, a
      series of laws passed by the British Parliament specifically with regard to
      events in the North American colonies... but you won't find anything there with regard to firearms.

      Can you guess why? It's because the gun was a common
      household tool at the time, and trying to ban it would have been like trying to ban axes or hammers.

      So you're trying to make this into something it is not: the American Revolution did not start as a reaction to the British banning firearms, as the title of your article explicitly claims.

      This is just another of your failed attempts at disinformation. It turns out
      that not all of us Americans are as stupid as you must think. Many of us still think for ourselves, and approach the kind of silly claims you make with great suspicion and cynicism. I'm not sure why you haven't figured out by now that spreading disinformation is politically counterproductive. I just confuses your own followers. I am sure, however, that wherever they are, Lenin and Stalin are smiling up at you with pride.

      Now go ahead and pull your head out, comrade, and we'll try to ignore the popping sound.

      [And good luck to you, Mr. Chicken.]

  • freedomringsforall

    "the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.—The latter is our choice—We have counted the cost of this contest"

    "We have counted the cost of this contest"

    Great words for the day!!

    "count the cost"

    Right out of the Bible.

    May we today do so also, and may we find no cost greater and no cost so needfully to be paid than the cost of fighting for and defending our rights and freedoms.

  • howardwolf

    Are these liberal fools still trying to tell us that the founding fathers would have been horrified by semiautomatic weapons, and would have banned them had they been available because they work too well?

    • freedomringsforall

      yeah what a joke huh!

  • eddyjames

    At least they say we have the right to hunt. Does anyone know the daily bag limit on tyrants ? Isn't there an open season on elected officials ? If not there should be.

  • concerned american
  • 2War Abn Vet

    If Obama was an American, perhaps he would know something of this history.

  • Steven Newman

    "Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy, censorship. When ANY government, or ANY church, for that matter, undertakes to say to it's subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how good the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, NO amount of force can control a FREE man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You CANNOT conquer a FREE man; the most you can do is KILL him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

    • dangerouspatriot

      From a Vietnam Era Vet, I'm with you on this one brother. If they want my guns so bad, they can pry them from my cold dead hands. NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS, REMEMBER FAST AND FURIOUS, ABOLISH GUN FREE ZONES AND ABORTION ON DEMAND. FIRE obama now so he doesn't get the perks x-presidents enjoy, like secret service protection, pension, etc.

    • Brian Kelsey

      I agree but I keep seeing people use the word "legally." When they redefine what is legal you no longer legally own it. We need to be using the word "rightfully." I wont be fingerprinted for a gun I rightfully own.

  • The Freedom Fighter

    Hey guys, stop complaining. If you dont like the way this country is run than you can leave. I swear if you come to my house I will drive you to florida for free and from there you can swim to cuba. You might get lucky, what if someone over there actually doesn't think that you guys are the dumbest people in the world.

    • Lynn Graham

      I almost feel sorry for you.....when the american people finally have enough of your would be tyrant, who do you think are going to be the ones standing up???? I'll give you a hint.....IT IS GOING TO BE THE TAXPAYING, WORKING FOLKS IN THIS COUNTRY.....IDIOTS LIKE YOU ARE GOING TO STARVE TO DEATH, AS WE STARVE THE GOVT. OF THE TAXES THEY NEED TO FEED YOUR WORTHLESS ASS.....DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE GREAT ONE IS GOING TO TRY TO FEED YOU.....OR THE ARMY HE HOPES WILL DELIVER THE THRONE HE HOPES FOR????? IDIOT

    • Marc Mulkey

      We don't like the way this country is being run because it is being 'fundamentally transformed' by your messiah into a country that doesn't resemble what our founding fathers set up in the constitution. So, no...we won't be running away because we don't like it. We'll fight it every step of the way as peacefully as possible. However, if they come to try and disarm us, the next civil war will start. You just keep thinking we're dumb and uneducated. The more you underestimate us, the better. As for your "Freedom Fighter" do realize that what you are supporting is the TAKING AWAY of freedoms, right? If anything, you are a sad, pathetic, little man or woman.

    • Tim Brown

      I'm sorry, Barack Obama hasn't commented here. He's the one wanting to "fundamentally change America." We're just wanting to keep it Constitutional.

    • Brian Kelsey

      Instead of dismantling this country those that want to see a "fundamental transformation" (Just what did the sheep actually think he meant by that??) should find one that suits them and go there.

  • The Freedom Fighter

    All of you are stupid. And you will lose either way because currently the majority of the people favor the liberal side. Which is to say that the majority of the people are educated.

    • har82

      You sir, are an ignorant fool.

    • Steven Newman

      To Anti-Freedom Fighter TROLL: Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a liberal (leftist) and they call you a hater, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, denier, wingnut, teabagger, terrorist, hillbilly, redneck, Republican, extremist, angry mob, greedy capitalist, religious bigot, etc, etc, ad nauseum. This is because they cannot debate on the merits of their position and fear what may be heard if it continues so they can only resort to attacking you with profane slurs, ad hominem attacks and wild labels in hopes that you will SHUT UP.

    • Tim Brown

      If the majority of people are like you, then they are fools. Ironic that you call yourself freedom fighter when you talk like a slave.

    • Brian Kelsey

      That's not actually true. While Obama got more votes than anyone else, not all the people voted so your claim that the majority of the people are in favor of the liberal side is dubious at best. And when you look at the election results and consider ALL votes, including Third Party candidates you'll see that barely a majority actually voted for him. Had the GOP run a real conservative/libertarian they would have won handily.

  • karol424

    I received this email today from This tryannical government not only wants our guns, they want us in internment camps. And they have already asked our military if they would turn their weapons on the US citizens. A senior military leader said Obama is using a new “litmus
    test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military
    leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership-
    will you fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not
    are being removed,” On Sunday General James Mattis, head of the United States
    Central Command, “was told to vacate his office several months earlier than
    planned.” Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American
    citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds
    of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic
    project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which
    asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse
    or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States
    government.” The survey was subsequently leaked because many of
    the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question. The US
    Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which
    troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens. In July
    2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in
    a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance
    Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in
    an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 " Internment
    and Resettlement Operations". Military assets will be used to
    “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the
    event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law. On page 20
    of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in
    confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the
    directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.” Given that
    second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the
    federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke
    controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while
    the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.

    Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun
    confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of

    • har82

      Waco ,, was the litmus test by which the federal government could see what ,, or how much the American people would put up with in the even they - slaughtered - civilians.
      Waco burned at the hands of Reno, clinton, and a rogue BATF ... And they got clean away with it ...
      Katrina ,, was another - test - , when they went house to house and confiscated all ,,, firearms form the civilian population in the aftermath.
      If you think the military ( now I'm not speaking of all of them mind you ) won't fire on you, it may be the last thing you ever ,, think.

    • Lynn Graham

      does it really matter if you are killed by a soldier, BATF agent, or the cop who lives down the street????? If the military does what it is trained to do, SO BE IT...WE STILL HAVE TO STAND!!!!!!! guerrilla warfare has worked pretty well so far, against the same troops that we are worried about, in afghanistan....don't get me wrong, I am a veteran, my son, is a veteran, BUT THIS IS THE COUNTRY WE BOTH SWORE AN OATH TOO.....TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN, AND DOMESTIC........STAND!!!!!!

  • har82

    It seems it has come full circle. Tyrants abound all throughout our government right now.
    Taxes on everything you can imagine, spending , spending , spending , and NO END TO IT.
    Lost liberties to local, State , and Federal ,,, governments due to license fees and HOA's, more use fees , taxes on fuel, water , power , electric, and soon even the air ,, we breath.
    Will it - never - stop ???. Will a bloated greedy government - ever - , be satiated ??.

    No my fellow Americans . It will never end. Not so long as even one ,, greedy tyrant holds an office in this country.
    There is only - 1 - true curse to follow. Unless of course, you wish to grovel at the feet of all those - greedy - ,, politicians - ..

  • jsmithcsa

    It was hardly unique for George III -- its standard, so to speak, for any tyrant wishing to oppress his people to strip them of the means to defend themselves.

  • The Old Man

    History repeats it's self every so many years.. maybe it's about time to be prepared to defend our rights again.

    • DrSique

      I have been saying, for some time, that history is, indeed, repeating itself. Not to worry. Those at Lexington Green were only outnumbered ten to one. Sounds like pretty good odds to me. Today, 80 million American own firearms. We only need to muster 25% to put a speedy end to todays tyranny.

    • Areminder

      But beware drones which look like humming birds or similar innocent creatures, they may well be armed with more than cameras. The British didn't have the technology for spying that the world possesses today, and is selling to anyone who wants it.

    • howardwolf

      It wouldn't have helped them. Smart people eventually acquire the same technology. Just take a look around the world to see how many have acquired nukes. And don't forget that George Armstrong Custer faced Sioux and Cheyenne at the Little Big Horn with repeating arms superior to what the Seventh Cavalry had at its disposal. Technological progress never stands still.

    • Lynn Graham

      and in reality....only about 14 percent showed up for the revolution.....our founders didnt win by standing face to face....they won by using guerilla tactics that made the cost to the british too high....we will need to do the same thing.....don't stand toe to toe with a swat team.....learn how to utilize what we already have....become proficient with long range firearms.....practice, practice, practice....and DO NOT BE AFRAID TO DIE......our children, and grandchildren, deserve a chance at a better life

    • Patriot

      That is the only way to approach this problem. Death by a thousand cuts.

      Guerrilla warfare!

      All men have fears, but the Brave put down their fears and go forward. Sometimes to Death, but always to Victory.

  • jemoon

    right to bear arms has no restrictions, to hunting rifles or magazine
    capacity. It has no restriction to size
    or quantity. There are no restrictions on the citizens who possess them as to
    the type of armament we may own, whether it be a slingshot, tank, cannon,
    warship, or bomber. The 2nd
    amendment simply states we have the right to bear arms. Why, to stop tyrants in their tracks.

    Patriotic Americans
    not only have this right, but a duty to honor the 2nd amendment,
    exercise and protect it with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

    • eddyjames

      Every one should own a sling shot. The wrist rocket is good, along with a bag of .36-.44 cal round lead balls. Fishing weights work fine also. They have greater kinetic energy than glass marbles or ball bearings. They will certainly get someones attention at 25 ft. allowing for the acquisition of a handgun with a little practice.

    • John Cook

      Yes, slingshots and blowguns too. A patient guy in a Gillie suit with a blowgun can take people out at 50 -75 feet silently. I have both and I have other equipment plus knowledge of deadly substances and bombs. Removing guns from the public may slow crime, but it has associated dangers--like running into me! I'm 71 and I'll fight like hell to retain the constitutional guarantees of freedom. If I die in the process, I will fall dead on a heap of those who attempted to make me buckle under. Like the 300 in SPARTA, I will stand on freedom.

      All I can say is wait'll they get a load a me and my friends--Americans who cannot tolerate oppression.

  • tt82

    If you know someone in the military, let them know what's happening and what they might be asked to do to We The People. I hope they make the right choice. We have GOD on our side.

    • spidermike

      I served in the Army from '65-'68 to include two Vietnam tours. I am struggling to remember my attitudes and knowledge level as a young 18 y/o soldier. It was a different time, but I believe that had I been given an order to disarm Americans, I would have. It's the training. You are somewhat isolated and believe your officers. And then, there's the oath you've taken to defend the Constitution against both foreign and domestic enemies. Had a legally appointed officer told me that Joe Sixpack down the street was a domestic enemy, I do believe I would have fired on Joe Sixpack. We were, of course, not experiencing then what our country is going through now and young people today are more aware of current events. . .BUT, I would not assume that today's soldiers would not follow what they are told is a lawful order. It certainly would be a terrible decision to have to make. The last group of Americans that struggled with that decision were the professional officer corps in 1861. Let's hope no soldier is faced with that decision again.

    • DrSique

      You may be right about the average foot soldier but, how many officers will issue illegal orders? Support

    • spidermike
    • DrSique

      Thanks Mike. I had already read that piece and sent the link to everyone on my e-mail list. I would suggest everyone else do the same. Seems a storm is coming.

    • Dave Mathews

      All of them will issue illegal and immoral's up to the NCO corp. to educate these young soldiers, that they DO NOT have to follow illegal and immoral orders from anyone including the FRAUD in the WH.!!!!

    • Recon Marine

      This is very true. The NCO Corps is the backbone of all the branches of our military. From what I have heard, Obama is purging the Officers corp, that any officer refusing to fire upon Americans is being asked to resign his commission or just plain getting kicked out, don't know how true this is at this time but it is worth looking into and pray that our NCOs' will adhere to the Constitution that they took an oath to defend. I know when I was still active duty in my beloved Marine Corps no NCO that I had contact with would ever think of turning on fellow countrymen and women. This was in the early and mid 60s. All humans die, its how you will die that counts. FREEMEN or SLAVES to the so-called elite. As far as courage, ask yourself, how much do I really love my children and grandchildren and my loved ones?

    • George Washington
    • DrSique

      Sorry, George, I meant well. What you said.

  • retiredmillwright

    Barack Obama ideas of disarming the common people to make them easier to shove his rotten agenda down their throats is a old tactic going back thousands of years. The Japanese rulers used to send their troops out on sword hunts to make sure the peasants had no defense from him. The British Royalty waited a tad late to take up the Americans' guns and our forefathers won our freedom with them. Now we have Another group of gun grabbers and want to be rulers (Obama and circus) and if you give up your guns your freedoms will be taken from you soon after.

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      The British did the same thing to the Scots regarding swords. If a Scot was found with a sword, he was executed. The Scots eventually rose up against the Brits. We are on the same path.